78stonewobble

This thread took an interesting turn. The only thing I know of being engineered for the really long haul is this stuff: http://longnow.org/ A clock designed to work for 10.000 years and a record of human languages on some sort of microfilm disc.

Good point, but I guess there would also be assorted categories of potential parents that would: A: Not think about taking a test. B: Choose to not take a test. C: Think they can handle a handicapped or disabled child, when they cannot. D: Any other option you can think of. Sadly you don't have to look further than the news to see that it isn't everyone that should have become parents or didn't really think it through.

I actually should have made another distinction too. Theoretically possible and practically possible. So far I'd argue that we know too little as to whether FTL is any of the options. If we suppose FTL is very hard and takes up alot of ressources, then allmost automatically that would disqualify a civilisation that expands rampantly on a planet with limited ressources. Basically they would expand themself into extinction before having the chance to use FTL. That would leave only civilisations that has mastered limiting growth to develop FTL. Sure, we shouldn't "bet" on the development of FTL, but if you put it like: On one hand we have proven physics and on the other we have unproven physics... Then I think we should look into it (not necessarily with any high priority) until we have proven that it is indeed impossible. Heck, just look at the time, energy and money spent on religion.

I completely agree that there is a huge difference between ie. being blind or deaf and as you say, significant pain, suffering or a shortened lifespan. Some people still choose to have a child even if they're in the last category (or have no choice but to do it). However I'd point out that no matter what you do or how "perfect" a child is, or how well raised, there are no guarantees that he or she will become valuable members of society or live a good life. There are many things beyond our control or ability to predict. From how the brain forms it's basic structures at early stages to whatever can happen to people during their upbringing and life. You certainly sound like a good parent, but imagine blindness in combination with parents who literally loved their child less for that and sadly it does happen.

True, but it hinges on the following suppositions that: A: That FTL is not only possible. B: That FTL can become very easy and cheap. C: That an alien civilisation wants to expand everywhere and devotes considerable ressources to do so. Might as well assume that FTL isn't possible, or that FTL can never be cheap or that a civilisation developing FTL will most likely have evolved to the point where it is able to restrict any exponential growth and won't expand beyond a few "civilisation backups" (colonies), unless they are in direct competition with another civilisation. They could be like us and only wanting to spend very limited ressources on seeking out life elsewhere.

Launched and docked the last engine. Then I launched and docked a fuel tank, did that again and again... 7 more to go.

I have to admit that while I can rationally follow the arguments, understand it I do not. In my point of view being ie. deaf will allways be a "deficiency", compaired to a "baseline" of how a human "should" work and being able to hear will allways be an advantage to the opposite. Obviously though it does not mean you cannot lead a full and/or good life as a deaf person or that they have any less value. Theres way more to that than the single aspect of hearing.

Signs of civilisation would still only be detectable within a very tiny area of the milkyway galaxy. If we say from the industrial revolution. It would only be a sphere with a diameter of 600 lightyears centered on earth. If life, but not intelligent life, is widespread and common, then signs of life, which might have been detectable on earth for billions of years and thus theoretically detectable in a sphere measuring billions of lightyears. Then life would probably not be enough to merit a closer look. But yes, too many if's. I'd feel more confident guessing if we had better sampling from atleast our solar system. Ie. whether Earth is decidedly the only place life has ever existed versus that venus, mars, europa and some comets had life or has life. Personally and purely speculative: FTL: Highly unlikely. Timetravel: Highly unlikely. Intelligent life: Quite quite rare, but not so rare as to make the earth the only intelligent life (if we can call it that), maximum of 50 in the milkyway. Life: Depending on what we find in solarsystem either relatively widespred to quite rare (with a maximum of a few hundred to thousand places in the milkyway). But it's all guesswork.

Thank you for the further explanation. I do not think my thoughts on the subject are far from yours. Hmm... You bring up some good associated questions in so far as medical interventions being both available and affordable and offcourse the whole insurance thing (personally I think it's a big no no for singling out people for something as genetics, which they had no influence on themselves). Though those might be off topic here. PS: I'm offcourse also viewing this thing from the perspective of a pervasive public health service (Denmark).

It is a good question. And you are right about astrospectroscopy. However the same principle applies. Life might have been detectable on our planet for billions of years, but intelligent life would only have made it's presence known over the last few hundred years. Again only detectable from within a relatively small bubble of space. If the latest guesstimates on the amount of planets out there are correct, then a single planet with life might be quite common and not worthy of investigation (yeah there are alot of if's in this).

Well I'm equally sceptical of the Fermi paradox. The universe is quite vast and we haven't been radiating EM for that long and have stopped with quite a bit of it allready again. We are only detectable within a sphere of space with a diameter of what? 100 lightyears? It's a very small sample all things considered.

You may be right about the handwaving part. I'm very sceptical that either is possible, so I'd rather put the argument in the category of not making it impossible.

Unless Novikov's self consistency principle holds true right?

Yet, some people still do it. Around here there was recently a case of a woman having a child despite her serious allergies and passing on to the child her hepatitis due to not wanting to innoculate the child. It wouldn't be the first time that I misunderstood something, but here I'm at a loss as to what you mean. I'm essentially agreeing with the poster on not opting for a "only the best of the best" scenario, but instead wanting to avoid the "the worst of the worst", even though I do not know to what degree it should be enforced according to the poster. Personally... In the interest of personal freedom (and responsibility) I think we should go with a change in public oppinion (which allready guides our evolution in determining what is presently beautifull and hot) rather than the fertility police approach.

Yeah I'd think that was the most logical explanation as well. Maybe not water, but that the plants have somehow evolved to also benefit from those vibrations (even if it's a small benefit).

The first trip to mars would be a magnificient thing, but... Well... I'd prefer rather slow cyclers moving buttloads of people and materials to and fro, because that would hopefully mean a permanently established precense there.

I'd say that a more obvious first test at new drive technologies would be a probe dedicated to exploring the boundaries of the heliosphere or other outer solarsystem exploration. But I'm still hoping new horizons will discover charon to be a mass relay.

This might be a bit OT, but regarding the Polywell... To put it bluntly. Does it work? Can it work, as a power source? Is Bussard brilliant or did he just become old n crazy (it happens!)?

Touchy subjects are quite often the best topics for discussion. My subjective feelings on this: 1: I think they should feel that and I think we should, as a society, frown upon this. In my mind, knowingly or willfully giving your children a debilitating and serious illness, just to fullfill a basic urge is bad. From a point of morality it is no different than me, knowingly or willfully gives a stranger a debilitating and serious illness to satisfy me needs for lulz or attention in the media. Note: I mean serious illnesses* here, not whether it's red hair or blonde hair or having 9 toes or 11 or even being blind or deaf. Which are, afterall, relatively insignificant stuff. And offcourse if people couldn't possibly know it then they're offcourse fully excused as well. 2: They could probably feel it like that, but personally I'd never hold it against them. Heck, subjectively the rate of "decent people" to all people is significantly higher among the disabled people I've met. I do think however, that most disabled people, would have preferred to not have that disability if everything else is equal. PS: By serious illness I mean illnesses that signicantly shortens lifespan and/or quality of life. Whether being blind or deaf will be a "significant reduction in quality of life" to a potential child is impossible to know. It's one of those things that contain too many variables and can only be known at the end of a persons life. PPS: Personally I tend to err on the side of caution. My parents have both had rather minor psychological issues, but with me it's been a struggle for 20+ years and I simply will not put a child through that if I can help it.

I'm now remembering the guy on youtube claiming that rockets don't work in space and that all them launches are fake, because... what was it... oh yeah, you cannot stop and restart solid fuel rockets. -..-

Well yesterday, I finally got back to my game and stopped attaching moar engines (for now) to my attempt at a grand touring ship instead beginning to dock fuel tanks. A pull design with 8 FTmN 280 nuclear engines on orange tanks outboard and 5 docking places for orange fuel tanks inboard, more can be attached at the ends of the fuel tanks since they have large docking rings at either end. Crew or additional fuel can be added to the front of the ship on a centre forward facing docking port. So far I'm thinking 24 launches and dockings to get the propulsion part ready. *lol*

I suspekt it's more a limitation of our ways of thinking that arose to combat problems of a small band of "cavemen". We have a certain difficulty grasping any bigger picture or maybe rather we werent built for it. I'm opposite... If I had a backyard, people could certainly buy it or use it for a nuclear powerplant. ... Or for waste disposal allthough in that case I might live of the rent quite a bit away. *lol* I'd just feel ... "Ok, did my part to improve the world now."

Well I definately don't think nuclear powerplant engineering and placement should be taken lightly and I also abhor the idea that a privately owned company's bottomline should be in any way connected with nuclear safety measures. You are right about the 100 % engineering attitude though: Not long ago I stumbled upon this: Definately the wrong place to save time and money as it turns out. However, as I see it... and if the UN report is to be trusted... Not going nuclear will kill more people than going nuclear will (if done properly). In my mind it's allmost criminal to not allways try to save as many lives as possible or conversely kill as few as possible. But theres that whole irrationality to it all... As the op refers to... We're happily accepting or ignorant that motor vehicles killed like 1,2 mio. people in 2004 and might have injured upto 50 mio. people.

Pft... I remember reading that the UN estimated that global warming could cost around 5.000.000 lives a year from the year 2025 to 2050. If you go rather high on the Chernobyl fatality figures that still makes global warming 400 times more dangerous than a chernobyl sized nuclear accident. -..-

Well according to wikipedia the mass of the earth is 5,97218 x 10 to the 24th power. Meaning, if I do this correctly, that the earth "weighs": 5.972.190.000.000.000.000.000.000 Kg ... I'll let someone much more savvy at maths attempt to calculate how many saturn 5's on mountain tops (or more likely xx km high towers) we would need to fire to catastrophically change the orbit of the earth. I think that it will take more saturns than there is room for, or even mass enough in the earth to build.